America's history is blood-drenched.
Permanent war is policy. Peace and stability are verboten.
One nation after another is targeted. Aggressive wars follow. Rule of
law principles and democratic values are discarded. Wealth, power and
unchallengeable dominance alone matter.
Scoundrel supporters glorify what they should condemn. More on them
below. Syria is being ravaged and destroyed. Spurious accusations target
Iran. Neither country threatens anyone. Malicious lies say otherwise.
Headlines claim Tehran keeps accelerating efforts to produce nuclear
weapons. No evidence whatever is cited. On August 25 Reuters headlined
"IAEA gets no deal with Iran on bomb research suspicions," saying:
So-called "concerns" about "suspected nuclear weapons research by Tehran"
weren't resolved. IAEA chief inspector Herman Nackaerts said important
differences remain. Agreement looks unlikely.
The IAEA was established to promote peaceful nuclear energy use. Allegedly
an independent autonomous organization, it reports to the Security Council
and General Assembly. Under current head Yukiya Amano, it's an imperial
Washington chose him. He serves US interests. His mandate excludes independence,
objectivity, and honesty. Despite no evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons
research and development, he claims otherwise.
Earlier he used forged or otherwise suspect documents. What long ago
was discredited became Exhibit A. Old material was recycled to look
new. Amano's predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei, didn't play by US rules
and got sacked.
What Washington says goes. Chief inspector Nackaerts' mandate is prevent
resolution. Otherwise US/Israeli accusations fall flat. Imperial aims
are sidetracked until new schemes emerge.
Regime change is policy. War plans are longstanding. Timing alone is
unknown. Perhaps 2013 is planned. The fullness of time will tell. A
steady drumbeat of inflammatory media reports and commentaries advances
the ball for what no one should contemplate or tolerate.
On nuclear issues, no country cooperates more than Iran. It exceeds
what most others would tolerate. It want equal, fair treatment. It deserves
no less. Its program is peaceful. It complies fully with NPT provisions.
America long ago spurned them. So does Israel. Both countries are nuclear
outlaws. Headlines don't accuse them of threatening world peace. IAEA
inspectors don't target them. They operate extrajudicially and get away
Only Iran is challenged. False accusations persist. Multiple negotiation
rounds got nowhere. Washington prevents resolution. So does Israel.
Doing so complicates their agenda.
Following Friday's Vienna meeting, Iran's IAEA representative, Ali Asghar
Soltaniyeh, commented as follows:
"We had about eight hours of intensive discussions in a constructive
environment. We mostly tried to bridge the gaps (relating to) differences
in the structure, approach, or modality for resolving the issues."
"We had….progress….but, of course, there are still some points that
have to be worked out at a later stage. In the meantime, these are issues
regarding allegations which….in many cases proved baseless and with
Nackaerts was ordered to assure discussions went nowhere. Follow-up
isn't planned. Before talks ended, Netanyahu claimed "additional proof
that Iran is continuing accelerated progress towards achieving nuclear
weapons and is totally ignoring international demands."
Netanyahu's an inveterate liar. He's also more bark than bite. Israel
won't go it alone against Iran. Doing so would be suicidal. Key Israeli
past and current military and government officials oppose war. They
do so for good reason.
Bluster is part of a politician's portfolio. Netanyahu and Defense Minister
Barak take it to the extreme. Talk is one thing. Destructive policy
War very likely is planned. Expect it on Washington's timetable, not
Israel's. When it comes, America will be the lead belligerent. Israel
will ride shotgun. The entire region and beyond will be threatened.
Catastrophic consequences may follow.
World peace never was more threatened. It hangs by a thread. Daily articles
and commentaries don't feature an issue too grave to ignore. Instead,
truth is maliciously inverted.
Enemies are created when none exist. War talk persists. Wrong over right
is promoted. Potential catastrophic consequences are ignored. So are
body counts, massive human suffering, and what fuels Washington's addiction.
Neoconservative hawk Charles Krauthhammer is a Fox New regular. He's
also a Washington Post columnist. He tilts far enough right to be belligerent.
His style substitutes hyperbole for facts.
He blames Assad for massacres and other atrocities committed by Western
recruited death squads. He backs more aggressive intervention.
He's merciless on Iran. On August 23, he headlined "The Cordesman criteria."
He accused Iranian leaders of "increasing menacing annihilationist threats."
He claims Israel faces "the most virulent genocidal threats since Nazi
"Time is short," he says. "Last-ditch negotiations….failed abjectly.
The Iranians are contemptuously playing with the process. The strategy
is delay until they get the bomb."
Request "congressional authorization for the use of force if Iran does
not negotiate denuclearization." End status quo "drift through kabuki
negotiations." The alternative is "liv(ing) under the threat of nuclear
blackmail from a regime the State Department (calls) the world's greatest
exporter of terror."
Readers believe this stuff. So do Fox News viewers. Never mind what's
true or false. Krauthammer, like other neocons, demands surrender. Iran
won't play that dirty game. His alternative is war.
Center for Strategic & International Studies analys Anthony Cordesman
was more measured. Nonetheless, he fell woefully short. He headlined
an August 1 commentary "Iran: Preventing War by Making it Credible."
The best way perhaps to prevent was is threaten it, he believes. Justifiability
was ignored. So were rule of law principles and what drives US and Israeli
Like others representing right-wing military interests, Cordesman accepts
the fiction of an Iranian threat. His analysis proceeds accordingly.
He's concerned about Washington and Israel biting off more than they
can chew. He wants to head fake Iran into submission.
Instead of explaining Tehran's peace agenda, its longstanding nonbelligerence,
its advocacy for a denuclearized Middle East, and desire for friendly
relations with all nations, he proposes threatening Iran short of war.
He suggests three actions:
(1) Focus negotiations around "clear US redlines." End ambiguity. "Iran
needs to know there are real limits to how long it can talk and stall."
Submit to US demands or face war.
Never mind that Tehran negotiates in good faith. Washington obstructs
resolution. Like other imperial supporters, Cordesman blames the victim.
(2) "(M)ake it clear to Iran that it has no successful options." Surrender
on US terms or else. Imply shock and awe bombing and other belligerent
options. (S)peak softly while….carr(ying) a big stick."
(3) Give Iran a face saving way out. Make it appear like "a kind of
victory." End sanctions. Offer trade, other economic, and political
incentives. Package them with other countries. Make surrender look like
America and Israel don't negotiate. They demand. Promises they make
aren't worth the paper they're written on. Many nations learned the
Iran wants its sovereign rights respected. It deserves that much and
more. It's endured decades of US/Israeli isolation and hostility. It's
not about to accept unreasonable demands.
Doing so won't end war threats. At best they'll be delayed. Washington
wants pro-Western puppets replacing Tehran's leaders. War is the bottom
line option of choice.
Cordesman didn't explain. Nor do Western fourth estate pressitutes.
They willingly go along with what they should condemn. They
make death and destruction possible. They'll get more than they bargain
for if Washington and Israel attack Iran. What better reason than that
to oppose it.
A Final Comment
Washington has few profiles in courage. On war and peace issues, even
fewer. Herd mentality dominates thinking. Politicians march in lockstep.
An occasional exception proves the rule.
During last December's Republican presidential debate, Ron Paul opposed
war on Iran. His <http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/ron-pauls-stunning-antiwar-performance-iran-talk-recalls-iraq-a-useless-war-that-killed-1-million-iraqis.html>comments
bear repeating. He spoke forthrightly and was condemned. Doing the right
thing has a price.
He's "running with the American people," he said. Lots of evidence suggests
Iran has no nuclear weapons program. "There’s no U.N. evidence of that
"There is no difference from 2003. You know what I really fear about
this. It's another Iraq coming. It’s war propaganda coming on….To me
the greatest danger is that we will have a president who will overreact,
and we will soon bomb Iran."
"It would make more sense if we lived through the Cold War, which we
did, with 30,000 missiles pointed at us. We ought to really sit back
and look and think and not jump the gun and think we're going to be
attacked. That’s how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so
much in Iraq."
"Nuclear weapons are loaded over there. Pakistan, India, Israel has
300 of them. We have our ships over there. We have to keep this in the
proper context. We don’t need another war!"
What about Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, he was asked?
"The plans are on the books. All they talk about is when are we, the
west, going to bomb Iran? They don't have a nuclear weapon. Why wouldn't
they try to send out some information, you know if you come and bomb
us, we might shut the straits of Hormuz down."
"We have 12,000 diplomats. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy
once in a while."
"Obviously I would like to see a lot less nuclear weapons. I don’t want
Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I would like to reduce them because there
would be less chance of war."
"But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the
same? This is dangerous talk. Yeah there are some radicals. They don't
come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous."
"They come here and they explicitly explain it to us. The CIA has explained
this to us. They come here and want to do us harm because we’re bombing
"Why were we flying drones over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many
countries? Why do we have 900 bases in (hundreds of) countries and we're
"How are we going to take care of the people? I think this wild goal
is to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing.
The danger is really us overreacting, and we need a strong national
defense and only go to war when there's a declaration of war...instead
of starting these wars so often…."
Asked about Iran's alleged threat to annihilate Israel, he said:
"There is no UN report that said that. It's totally wrong on what you
just said. That is not true. They produced information that led you
to believe that. But they have no evidence."
"You cannot solve these problems with war….Get them over with, instead
of this endless fighting and this endless attitude that we have enemies
all around the world…"
Rarely are these type comments heard on Capitol Hill. US national television
almost never airs them. They're unheard of in presidential debates.
Media scoundrels promoting war jump all over opponents.
Paul remains anti-war. Imagine if a majority in Congress agreed. Imagine
peace instead of endless wars.
If Congress won't do what's right, ordinary people must act. Either
we stop wars or they'll destroy us. A threat that real demands action.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized
Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge
discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News
Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time
and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy